JUDGMENT - S.M. JHUNJHUNUWALA, J.:---By this petition, the petitioner seeks to have the Award dated 27th June, 1985 filed in this Court and numbered as 'Award No. 24 of 1986' set aside. In the alternative, the petitioner seeks modification of the said Award by deleting the portions thereof pertaining to the counter-claims of the respondents filed before the Arbitrators. 2.The petitioner carries on business of acting as Engineer and Contractor in the firm name and style of Messrs. Seth Co. as the sole proprietor thereof. The respondents, Union of India through the Chief Engineer (Survey and Construction), Central Railway, Bombay, had invited tenders for the work of fabrication and erection of Railways Steel for Light Repair Shed at Ghorpuri (for short, 'the said work'). The petitioner had submitted the tender for the said work which was accepted on behalf of the respondents and the said work was awarded to the petitioner as per respondents' letter dated 24th May, 1980 addressed to the petitioner. A formal Contract Agreement No. XEM/X/67 dated 17th October, 1980 was entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondents. The date of commencement of the said work as per the said contract was 24th May, 1980 and the time specified in the said contract for completion thereof was 6 months from 24th May, 1980. Accordingly, the said work was stipulated to be completed by 23rd November, 1980. 3.According to the petitioner, various delays and hindrances were caused by the respondents in the petitioner completing the said work and the respondents committed breaches of the said contract resulting into non-completion of the said work by the petitioner within the stipulated time. It is also the case of the petitioner that on or about 24th March, 1982 the said contract was partially rescinded and on or about 23rd June, 1982, it was finally rescinded by the respondents. It is common ground that the General Conditions of Contract formed part of the terms and conditions of the said contract between the petitioner and the respondents. 4.Clause 62 of the General Conditions of Contract provides for determination of contract owing to the fault of Contractor. Clause 63 of the General Conditions of Contract provides for matters which may be finally determined by the Railway and Clause 64 thereof provides for arbitration. 4.Clause 62 of the General Conditions of Contract provides for determination of contract owing to the fault of Contractor. Clause 63 of the General Conditions of Contract provides for matters which may be finally determined by the Railway and Clause 64 thereof provides for arbitration. Clause 64(1) which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy between the parties reads as under : "64(1). Demand for Arbitration.---In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties hereto as to the construction or operation of this contract or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties on any matter in question dispute or difference on any account, or as to the withholding by the Railway of any certificate to which the contractor may claim to be entitled to, or if the Railway fails to make a decision, within a reasonable time then and in such case, but except in any of the 'excepted matters' referred to in Clause 63 of these conditions, the Contractor after 90 days of his presenting his final claim on disputed matters, may demand in writing that the dispute or difference be referred to arbitration. Such demand for arbitration shall specify the matters which are in question, dispute or difference and only such dispute or difference of which the demand has been made and no other, shall be referred to arbitration." Clause 64(3)(iii) of the General Conditions of Contract which is also relevant, reads as under: "(3)Arbitration :---(iii) The Arbitrator/Arbitrators/Umpire so appointed as the case may be shall give the award on all matters referred to arbitration indicating therein break-up of the sums awarded separately on each individual item of dispute." 5.Since disputes and differences arose by and between the parties to the said contract and as the petitioner made demand for reference thereof to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement by and between the petitioner and the respondents contained in the said Clause 64, the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction) Central Railway, Bombay, of the respondents by the letter dated 3rd January, 1983 addressed to the firm of the petitioner, referred the claims of the petitioner and counter-claims of the respondents to arbitration and appointed one M.C. Bhide, Chief Planning Design Engineer, Central Railway and one S. Ramaswamy, Financial Advisor and Chief Account Officer, Central Railway, Bombay, as Arbitrators for deciding the same as mentioned therein. By the letter dated 7th February, 1984 addressed by the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Central Railway, Bombay, of the respondents to the firm of the petitioner, further two claims of the petitioner against the respondents and the respondents' counter-claims as mentioned therein were also referred to arbitration of the said Arbitrators. The Arbitrators entered upon the reference on 18th June, 1984 and allowed the parties sufficient opportunity to lead such evidence, oral and documentary as deemed fit and proper in support of their respective claims and counter-claims and heard the parties to dispute on the claims of the petitioner and counter-claims of the respondents and after taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, made and published the said Award dated 27th June, 1985 which has been filed in this Court and numbered as 'Award No. 24 of 1986'. 6.Mr. Thakker, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the said Award on the following grounds :--- (1)that as per Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract, the counter-claims of the respondents were not arbitrable and as such, the Arbitrators had no jurisdiction to consider or make any award in respect of the counter-claims of the respondents and since the Arbitrators have made the said Award awarding counter-claims Nos. (iii), (iv) and (vi) of the respondents to the extent mentioned therein, the Arbitrators have misconducted themselves and the proceedings before them and as such, the said Award is liable to be set aside; (2)that the Arbitrators misconducted themselves and the proceedings before them inasmuch as the Arbitrators have awarded an amount of Rs. 52,000/- in favour of the respondents in respect of counter-claim No. (vi) which pertains to respondents allegedly getting the work of Glazing carried out at the risk and costs of the petitioner though the work of Glazing was taken away from the petitioner even before partial recession of the said contract on 24th March, 1982; (3)that the said Award made by the Arbitrators is bad in law, invalid and liable to be set aside since the Arbitrators have awarded a sum of Rs. 36,000/- to the respondents in respect of counter-claim No. (iv) for extra expenditure allegedly incurred by the respondents for AC Sheets issued to the petitioner; (4)that awarding of interest at 12% per annum by the arbitration was beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrators since the claim for interim was neither referred to arbitration nor included in the statement of the respondents pertaining to counter-claims submitted to the Arbitrators. 7.Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the respondents, has submitted that the said Award made by the Arbitrators is valid, legal and binding on the parties hereto who were parties to the said reference to arbitration. The Arbitrators had the jurisdiction to entertain the award, the counter-claims of the respondents and that the counter-claim of the respondents in respect of Glazing work as also pertaining to AC Sheets as awarded by the Arbitrators have been justly and properly awarded more particularly in view of the fact that the Glazing work which was got carried out at the risk and costs of the petitioner was not taken away by the respondents from the petitioner and the petitioner was liable to pay the differential value in respect of AC Sheets supplied by the respondents. As regards interest awarded the learned Counsel has submitted that as per the said Award, interest is payable only if the amount awarded is not paid within 30 days from making of the said Award. No interest has been awarded either for pre-reference period or pendente lite but from the date of the said Award until date of payment in case the amount awarded is not paid within 30 days of the making of the said Award, which according to the learned Counsel in the facts of the case, was within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrators to award and as such, the said Award is not liable to be set aside. 8.There is no dispute that the petitioner had invoked arbitration under the said Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract. There is also no dispute that the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Central Railway, Bombay, of the respondents while exercising the powers vested in him by reason of the agreement between the parties had appointed the Arbitrators in accordance with the arbitration agreement contained in the said Clause 64. There is also no dispute that the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Central Railway, Bombay, of the respondents while exercising the powers vested in him by reason of the agreement between the parties had appointed the Arbitrators in accordance with the arbitration agreement contained in the said Clause 64. The appointment of the arbitrators was, as mentioned in the said letter dated 3rd January, 1983 as also the said subsequent letter dated 7th February, 1984 both addressed to the petitioner to arbitrate upon the claims of the petitioner and the counter-claims of the respondents arising out of the said contract and/or relating to the rights and liabilities of the parties thereto as mentioned therein. The reference to arbitration of the Arbitrators expressly including reference of the counter-claims of the respondents against the petitioner alongwith the claims of the petitioner against the respondents. To such a reference to arbitration, the petitioner had not then taken any objection. Not only this, but the petitioner did file reply to the counter-claims of the respondents against the petitioner before the arbitrators. Such reply was filed on or before 12th November, 1984. In the reply filed by the petitioner to the counter-claims of the respondents, the petitioner did not state that the counter-claims of the respondents were not arbitrable. The petitioner filed the reply to the counter-claims of the respondents on merits. Even in the meeting before the Arbitrators held on 11th November, 1984, the petitioner did not take any objection pertaining to arbitrarility of the counter-claims of the respondents against the petitioner. The contention now taken by the petitioner that the counter-claims of the respondents against the petitioner were not arbitrable and that the Arbitrators had no jurisdiction to arbitrate in respect thereof is devoid of any merit. 9.Moreover, the said Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract, which admittedly contains provision for arbitration, is wide enough even to cover the counter-claim of the Railway. It provides for reference to arbitration of any dispute or difference between the parties to the contract as to the construction or operation of the contract or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties thereto on any matter in question, dispute or differences on any account except in any of the 'excepted matters' referred in Clause 63 of the General Conditions of Contract. As per Clause 64(iiii), the Arbitrator/Arbitrators/Umpire so appointed, as the case may be, is to give the award on all matters referred to arbitration. The counter-claims of the respondents related to the construction or operation of the said contract or rights of the respondents and liabilities of the petitioner under or in respect of the said contract on the matters in dispute and as such within the ambit and scope of the said arbitration agreement between the petitioner and the respondents and the Arbitrators had the jurisdiction to arbitrate in respect thereof. 10.In support of his submission that the counter-claims of the respondents were not referable to arbitration, Mr. Thakker has put reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of (Union of India v. Bharat Engineering Corporation)1, reported in I.L.R. 1977(4) Delhi 57. On facts of the instant case, the ratio of the said judgment of the Delhi High Court does not apply. In that case, a petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was moved. Disputes, for which reference to arbitration was sought, were enumerated in annexture to the petition which comprised only of the claims made by the contractor. Though in its reply, the Railway mentioned that it had suffered huge loss due to the failure of the contractor to complete the work, there was no prayer for reference of counter-claim of the railway to arbitration. It was in that context, the Delhi High Court took the view that the counter-claim of the Railway in that case was not referable to arbitration. In the instant case, as aforesaid, reference to arbitration was explicitely made in respect of the claims of the petitioner against the respondents and the counter-claims of the respondent against the petitioner and the appointment of the Arbitrators was to arbitrate in or upon the same. 11.Whether the counter-claims of the respondents pertaining to Glazing work and difference in valuation of AC Sheets on merits ought to have been allowed or not, was the question within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrators. 11.Whether the counter-claims of the respondents pertaining to Glazing work and difference in valuation of AC Sheets on merits ought to have been allowed or not, was the question within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrators. The contention now raised by the petitioner in respect of these two counter-claims which have been allowed by the Arbitrators, are on the merits thereof inasmuch as, according to the petitioner, these counter-claims ought not to have been allowed as the Glazing work was taken away from the petitioner before recession of the said contract and in the facts of the case petitioner could not have been saddled with the liability for differential valuation of AC Sheets. Whether the Glazing work was in fact taken away from the petitioner as contended depended upon factual considerations and evidence on record which the Arbitrators have determined and concluded. On facts, it has been concluded by the Arbitrators that the Glazing work in respect whereof counter-claim was made by the respondents was not taken away by the respondents from the petitioner. Similarly, in respect of respondents' counter-claims for differential value of AC Sheets, on merits, the contentions raised by the petitioner before the Arbitrators have been not accepted by the Arbitrators. The adjudication of the respondents' counter-claim under the head 'Surplus steel not returned' was also on merits dependent on evidence before the Arbitrators and appreciation thereof by the Arbitrators. 12.Needless to say that since the ambit and scope of challenge to an award under section 30 of The Arbitration Act, 1940 has now been laid down by the Supreme Court as also by our Court and other High Courts, an award is not vulnerable to any challenge thereto. When an Arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the disputes between the parties, an award is not open to challenge on the ground that the arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate the facts. The appreciation of evidence by the Arbitrator is never a matter which the Court questions and considers. The Arbitrators were the sole Judges of the quality as well as the quantity of evidence before them and it will not be for this Court to take upon itself the task of being a Judge on the evidence before the Arbitrators. The appreciation of evidence by the Arbitrator is never a matter which the Court questions and considers. The Arbitrators were the sole Judges of the quality as well as the quantity of evidence before them and it will not be for this Court to take upon itself the task of being a Judge on the evidence before the Arbitrators. Once there is no dispute as to the contract, what is the interpretation of that contract is a matter for the arbitrators on which the Court cannot substitute its own decision. An award is not invalid merely because by a process of inference and arguments, it may be demonstrated that the Arbitrator has committed mistake in arriving at his conclusion. The Court has no appellate jurisdiction in deciding a petition to set aside an award under section 30 of The Arbitration Act, 1940. 13.On considering the rival contentions of the parties and interpreting the terms of the said contract, the Arbitrators have on merits of the counter-claims of the respondents, held that the petitioner is liable in respect of surplus steel not returned to the extent of Rs. 60, 000/-, in respect of the Glazing work to the extent of Rs. 52, 000/- and for AC Sheets to the extent of Rs. 36, 000/-. I find no fault with these findings of the Arbitrators and the said Award in respect thereof can not be set aside. 14.The Arbitrators have awarded the claims of the petitioner against the respondents to the extent of Rs. 45,000/-. The Arbitrators have awarded the counter-claims of the respondents against the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 1,48,000/-. In para 4 of the said Award, the Arbitrators have stated as under: "If the amount is not paid within 30 days from making this Award, interest at the rate of 12% (twelve percent) will accrue thereafter, until the date of payment." The award of interest is neither for pre-reference period nor for interest pendente lite. It is for the post award period payable only if payment of the amount as awarded was not made within 30 days from the date of the said Award. It is for the post award period payable only if payment of the amount as awarded was not made within 30 days from the date of the said Award. When all disputes, including the question of interest, were referred to the Arbitrators for their decision, the Arbitrators had the jurisdiction, in the facts of the case, to grant interest on the amount of the award from the date of the said Award till the date of the decree or payment, whichever is earlier, more particularly when reference to arbitration was made after the commencement of the Interest Act, 1978. A person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages. I find no infirmity in the said Award even for the interest awarded. Even otherwise, this Court in exercise of its discretion under section 29 of The Arbitration Act, 1940 is empowered to award interest on the principal amount awarded from the date of the said Award till the date of the decree in terms thereof and from the date of the decree till payment or realisation, whichever is earlier. In the case of (Gujarat Water Supply Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. another)2, reported in A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 973, the Supreme Court has observed that interest for the period from the date of the Award till the date of passing of decree in terms thereof should be allowed in any event in case where the reference to arbitration was made after the commencement of the Interest Act, 1978. 15.In the result the petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed with costs. Ms. Shah learned Counsel for the respondents, applies for pronouncement of decree in terms of the Award. Since the petition to challenge the said Award is just dismissed, under Rule 787(5) of the Rules of this Court as applicable on its Original Side, this Court has the power to pass the decree in terms of the said Award at this stage. Accordingly, judgment is pronounced and decree passed in terms of the Award dated 27th June, 1985 filed in this Court and numbered as 'Award No. 24 of 1986'. Petition dismissed. *****